Talk:Laing O'Rourke

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Largest Privately Owned Construction Company - Independently Sourced

Hi,

In relation to the claim Ling O'Rourke is the largest privately owned construction company in the UK. Would this count as an independent source. [1] Therefore, edit the page to say largest privately owned construction company in the UK by revenue?

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/market-data/top-100-construction-companies/2011

Wellbrook (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The construction index is an independent source so I have added the comment to the Operations section. Dormskirk (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Operations Section - Service Companies Added

I have added the companies owned by Laing O'Rourke to the Operations section as they are missing. I am not 100% sure if the links to the external website is the correct procedure. Any advice or edits welcome. (Wellbrook (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC))

It's not at all correct, partly because it's another chunk of information cited to the Laign website (rather than secondary sources). It also looks very promotional to add embedded links to each of the companies' external websites. I've removed the list. Sionk (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sionk for correcting it. I was trying to base it on the operations section at the Royal BAM Group article. Here the associated companies are listed. Do you think it is worth having the list in the Laing O'Rourke article with no external links? Or a sentence structure to reduce space? (Wellbrook (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laing O'Rourke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802010706/http://www.laingorourke.com/aboutus/Our_Journey/Pages/Home.aspx to http://www.laingorourke.com/aboutus/Our_Journey/Pages/Home.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2004/05/19/41997/laing-orourke-agrees-to-17m-deal-to-buy-out-crown.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.laingorourke.com/media/news-releases/2016/group-announcement.aspx.article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913072216/http://iaq.com.au/images/PDF/Yearbook/2009/Part%205.pdf to http://www.iaq.com.au/images/PDF/Yearbook/2009/Part%205.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530090802/http://redispan.com/ to http://www.redispan.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisting Neutrality

This article is written in a way which favours the point of view of the unions. Suggest that this source is used to revise: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/29/blacklisted-workers-secure-compensation-construction-firms --46.208.54.95 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have inserted a bit stating that the construction companies had admitted that the blacklist was unlawful and apologised to those damaged by it. Please feel free to add anything else you want to from the Guardian article but the facts look pretty clear so I hope we can now remove the tag. Dormskirk (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)